How can we end the civil war in Syria?

Since the first peaceful uprising in Syria on March 15, 2011 as part of the Arab Spring and against the dictatorship of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, dissent was met with brutal violence. As this violent repression continued some of the opposition took up arms as well. Right now there have been about 90,000 Syrians killed and 1.5 million refugees, who have fled Syria.

According to the International Rescue Committee 5.75 million Syrians or 1 in every 4 has been displaced. Of the 1.5 million refugees outside the country more than 1/3 are children under 12 years of age. They are now located in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt and in camps along the borders.

The IRC also says “More than two years after the start of what has become a full fledged civil war, the crisis in Syria threatens the entire Middle East with a humanitarian disaster. It is estimated that more than four million Syrians are now in dire need of assistance and that some two million people have been uprooted and displaced…”

One of three IRC schols at a refugee camp inside Syria. Photo by Peter Biro

For an excellent summary of the developments from March 2011 to mid-April of 2013 here’s an interactive Reuters visual and verbal timeline with links to articles along the way. This will allow me to focus on the present situation and on the question of how to stop the killing and displacement being caused by what has become not only a sectarian Syrian struggle between the mainly Sunni Muslim opposition and Assad’s Alawite minority but a geopolitical footballwhere both proxy and on the ground struggles are taking place. These involve neighboring factions, including fighters from Sunni and Shiite nations within the Muslim world. At the same time economic and political rivals such as Russia and China are warring with the US and the EU. And Israel has bombed Syria three times this year with the reasoning that they are “threatened” by arms that might be going from Syria to Hezbollah.

Even within the ranks of the potential negotiators there are political disputes such as the long debate within the EU where France and the UK held out for ending the arms embargo to the Syrian opposition — while Senator John McCain, Ranking member of the Armed Services Committee held a brief Memorial Day meeting with the rebels in Syria while criticizing President Obama for not immediately arming them. The opposition movement is struggling to define itself and there are some battles over the representation of religious and radical Islamists versus more moderate and secular Muslims. France has threatened to boycott any negotiations if Iran is going to be present. Meanwhile weapons of all kinds are flowing into Syria both officially and unofficially. The latest official announcement of heavy weaponry from Russia was a shipment of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missiles. The shipment of these missiles was reportedly Russia’s response to the decision to end the EU arms embargo on the opposition forces.

A protester holds a sign during a women’s demonstration in Syria, against the Bashar al Assad crackdown on democracy protests, outside the Syrian embassy in London, June 2012. Photo credit: TAL COHEN/AFP/GettyImages

As things stand right now there will be a three party (representatives from the US, Russia and the UN) meeting in Geneva on June 5th to plan for actual negotiations with all parties involved. “to discuss ways to bring the warring sides in Syria together for a peace conference…” In the meanwhile things are dire and violence is escalating in a Syrian town that occupies a strategic position for both sides of the conflict. It’s the town of Qusayr, in Homs province near the Lebanese border.” The best way that we can understand what the residents are experiencing is to remember the tornado that demolished parts of Moore, Oklahoma and think of a human made tornado of violence.

“Warning that the town, once home to some 30,000 people, could be wiped off the map and hundreds of wounded risked dying without help, the rebel fighters inside Qusair issued an appeal on social media for allies to come to break the siege…”

They pointedly said they held not just fellow guerrilla units responsible for coming to their aid but also the Syrian National Coalition, whose exile members have spent a week arguing in Istanbul over how to present a common front at peace talks Washington and Moscow are trying to arrange in Geneva…”

So what can we do to stop this fighting and killing and creation of another permanent group of of millions of displaced people and the complete destruction of what was an advanced and relatively prosperous country? It’s clear that from the past 26 months of fighting there is no chance of a military end to this conflict. Providing more and more destructive weapons to both sides will not end the war or the suffering. Insisting that negotiations can’t begin until Assad steps down or the opposition provides approved political composition will just prolong the agony.

The only solution is a negotiated political one where all sides need to come to the table. There is no time to delay and to continue to wrangle over who is more violent or evil or more dangerous or likely to challenge the strategic interests of one group of nations or another. Bombings and no-fly zones will not work.

It seems to me that both the opposition and the Assad regime need to be at the negotiating table with all of the other key players in the region and the allies of both sides of the conflict. As the Al-Monitor has said in an editorial:

For the Geneva II conference on Syria to have the best chance of enacting a cease-fire and beginning a transition, Iran needs to be there.
[…]
It should be a no-brainer to have all parties to a conflict represented at a peace conference. There is no “transition” in Syria absent a cease-fire, and no cease-fire without Iran, which provides the military and intelligence lifeline to the Assad regime.

Iran is unlikely to agree to a deal where its interests and influence are not recognized in Syria.

The likely result of Iran’s exclusion from Geneva II would be Tehran digging in on behalf of the Syrian regime, thereby doing its best to assure the conference will end with no result but more violence.

Update on Monday, June 3, 2013:

Couldn’t resist adding this cartoon about how foolish it would be for more weapons to flow into Syria from the United States or any of the Western powers:

Why sending weapons to the “opposition” will not replace a negotiated ceasefire and transition in Syria. Cartoon by Pat Bagley

Western Asia, Northern Africa and the Middle East. Syria’s neighborhood and many of the key players in the conflict and in its resolution.

Mickie Lynn

10 Responses

Mickie:
Thanks for the thorough summary of the history and current situation in Syria. This seems like our chance to engage with Iran about something important to our interests and theirs, and to finding peace in Syria. I can’t imagine that Assad has held out and hurt his own people the way he has, with nothing to gain for himself. With the right parties at the table, surely he will want to negotiate an end to the ruin he has wrought.

Marcia, Thanks for your comment. I agree that including Iran in the Syrian “ceasefire and transition to peace” negotiations would be valuable to bringing peace to Syria. As a long term bonus it would open negotiations with Iran that could avoid sanctions and military engagement with that country and elicit more cooperation in the region.

Although there are already many links to information in the blog article, today I’ve found a link to an article that suggests the Obama administration and the Pentagon may possibly be exploring a no-fly zone, or provision of weapons in Syria.

Dear Mr. President,
War is Not the Answer. We, the undersigned, urge you to continue to abstain from any U.S. or allied military attack on Syria, or any escalation such as a “no fly” zone or direct arming of any faction in the conflict, and to rely on diplomacy and international cooperation to help resolve the terrible humanitarian crisis and civil war there.

Mickie Lynn, your passion and witness are unparalleled; I am so thankful to be able to read your words, even if I do not comment often.

I was thinking of you when I heard a story with audio from a Syrian man who said that while he was against Assad, he was also against the “rebels,” which have morphed as he sees it, into a chaotic war machine of their own. Peace must come, not through violence.

Fran, thank you so much for your comment. I was moved by your appreciation of the blog and by knowing that you are a reader even though you don’t often comment.

You contributed an important perspective. The experience of Syrians who have been drawn into the struggle even though they weren’t originally part of the pro-democracy movement, or strong supporters of the Assad government. It’s vital to remember that just the fact of where you live determines whether your community will suffer death, injury and displacement.

Now there is talk about delaying negotiations until August. Every day is of the utmost urgency because the war is widening throughout the region. Now the Syrian opposition forces are firing rockets into Hezbollah neighborhoods in Lebanon, while some Sunni nations including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are calling for fighters to go to Syria and take up arms against President Bashar al Assad and his supporters.

Thank you for waging peace and calling on our government to use its resources and power to resolve the issues in Syria without resorting to violence. Your research and information in your blog are appreciated.

Thanks for your comment and for your support Mabel. The research about the situation in Syria started as an attempt for me to gather facts to face my own uncertainty about what was the best approach to ending the bloody civil war in Syria.

Today I came across a cartoon that indicates the futility of arming the opposition as a way to “solve” the conflict and I’ve added it to the end of the article.

Mickie, your points are based on reality not on ideology or partisanship.

I would like to add one more “context” or “emphasis” to help readers grasp the significance of a need to de-escalate and search for negotiation approaches.

If we were Iranian Muslims we might very well be very concerned about our minority status (as Shia) in the region.

Hezbollah and the Assad regime and his Alawite group and the majority of the Iranian population are Shia in a sea of Sunni Muslims and Sunni Muslim states. It is regrettable that Europe engaged in so many religious and sectarian wars of past and recent history, and it is a sad state of affairs and a very dangerous one that so many people are engaging in Sunni vs. Shia rivalries in the Mideast.

Because their paranoia is somewhat justified, Iranian and other Shia political leaders may be inclined to make matters worse and to put short term self-preservation ahead of peaceful, prosperous, long term solutions for the region. Nobody can guarantee a good outcome there, but any one faction could make things worse, much, much worse. More Sunni fighters rushing to the region is not a good sign. The US appearing to take sides against the Shia populations could have very severe negative consequences.

I would have included the following paragraphs in my previous post if the cat on my lap had not distracted me!

Here is my wish, and I would like any suggestions in fulfilling it: how can we get the main stream press to describe Hezbollah more accurately? Yes, in the past they engaged in bloody terrorist activities largely because of frustration that Israel was not willing to do right by Palestinians by peaceful means (I am not excusing, simply explaining reality.)

In recent years, Hezbollah has engaged primarily in political action and community building within Lebanon.
To the extent that they do retain military build ups and planning, it is proportionate to the perpetual roadblocks Israel presents to a fair settlement within the land that has been claimed by both Jewish and Palestinian people.

On any given occasion, the US or France or England or India or (need I go on?) have resorted to force to get their way. Readers or the judgment of history may condone any particular example or condemn it (should the US have waged war against Iraq, should Britain retain the Farallon Islands by force??). I simply ask that we not use a double standard.

I hope that Hezbollah never kills or injures an innocent bystander again, but they ought not to be vilified for pursuing what they believe to be a just cause (and would find agreement for that among millions of people)any more than the US ought to be vilified for killing people with drones in foreign countries because we think we have a good cause.

Or…is it the other way around? Ought both the US and Hezbollah be supported and encouraged when they pursue peaceful mechanisms and both be sanctioned and discouraged when they escalate violence in pursuit of their goals?

If the press would stop calling Hezbollah a militia (since that is only one aspect of their activities, and they are an actual political party in Lebanon) or repeating endlessly that the US government has declared them a terrorist group without any balancing description beyond that, we might have a better dialogue in our public space about pushing for a diplomatic solution in Syria and in our relations with Iran.

A large U.S. military force has reportedly arrived at a port in the south of Jordan, ready to be deployed at the country’s border with neighboring Syria.
The Israeli military intelligence website DEBKAfile has reported that 1,000 U.S troops from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Force arrived at the southern Jordanian port of Aqaba on Tuesday and made their way to the north of the country under heavy Jordanian military escort.
According to DEBKAfile, Washington imposed a blackout on the arrival of the rapid-response force as the Pentagon only reported the sending of a Patriot missile battery and F-16 warplanes to Jordan for a military drill.
On Monday, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command based in Tampa, Florida, Lieutenant Colonel T.G. Taylor, confirmed that Patriot missile launchers and F-16 fighter jets “were approved for deployment to Jordan”.
The U.S. has sent numerous ground troops to Jordan over the past few months, mainly for operating a training camp for militants fighting against the Syrian government. […]

Mickey we can’t publish the rest of your comment as written. If you care to disagree with Linda’s ideas without labeling her or personally criticizing her — then we’d be glad to publish a comment based on ideas and opinions about the situation in Syria and the involvement of various factions.
Mickie Lynn

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.

Women Against War:Supporting non-military ways of solving conflictsAbout us